Libertarian Fascism & the Neoreactionary Movement of Curtis Yarvin (Mencius Moldbug)

[wizardwatson]

Libertarian Fascism & the Neoreactionary Movement of Curtis Yarvin (Mencius Moldbug)

THREAD OBJECTIVE

This thread is to discuss the "ideas" behind Curtis Yarvin's (known by the online alias Mencius Moldbug, Mencius from Chinese philosopher, I haven't quite figured out what "Moldbug" is supposed to be) fascist ideas of government which from what I gather prefers to be called "neoreactionary", a term which many attribute to him. The objective is to discuss these ideas AND HOW IT RELATES TO THE IDEAS BEHIND THE LIBERTY MOVEMENT. The R3volution. The Ron Paul Movement. The Remnant. That "I" represent. This can't be stressed enough. I don't discuss things in a vacuum. There must be a purpose. If we don't have counterpoints we get stuck in the downward spiral of the illusion of ascertaining the "absolute truth" of a thing, and everyone whining about "you don't know what I mean". The neoreactionary movement doesn't exist as a shining light in a vacuum of stupidity and ignorance, I have legitimate grievances. If you want to deflect and deny and ignore because I challenge your cabal then fine, run away. Maybe when you take over the world you can have me disappeared.

TOPIC STUFF

Now before you knee-jerk prone people get all red-faced and panicky, the "true" fascists don't like to be automatically grouped in with the likes of Hitler. They hold the word in high respect. I also like definitions of words to be respected, so lets not assume just yet that being a fascist means you/they are going to put the Jews in the oven. They are amoralist so they have no moral objection, but it isn't necessarily in their list of "todos".

There are a few posters on this forum I've come to realize who follow this philosophy. Now as a God-fearing Christian in the vein of Tosltoy, Weil, Kierkegaard, and Bruce Lee, when I look at this philosophy I see nothing but ignorance really. "Intelligence" and "sanity" in government is not simply non-contradictory order vs. chaos. There must be a moral framework. And morality, that is "right and wrong", is not subjective. It's subjective in it's comprehension but not in its application.

Anyway, I'm perfectly willing to discuss these ideas with those who support them. I'm a little disappointed that so many posters have seemed to claim this ideology but I had to ascertain the originator myself. It's sneaky. It hints at a "cabal" like faction of people who have a non-open agenda. It seems to me they realize that "only smart people" will understand, so better to just execute the plan and let the elite "find us". Unfortunately, there are certain people of certain intelligence who will not join. I'm one of them.

Anyway, I will post my observations about this philosophy until I feel I've gotten a clear picture of its intent, origins, goals, and dangers. Feel free to join in.

Here are some resources I've found so far:

Curtis Yarvin's primary blog:
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/

Here's his blogspot bio:

Stubbornness and disrespect, programming languages and operating systems, obsessive epistemology and formalist propaganda, Austrian economics and contemporary verse

...

Good to know you Curtis!

My name is David.

I'm also a programmer by trade. "Austrian economics", I've dabbled. "Contemporary verse", well I kind of think everything I write is poetry. "Obsessive epistemology", can we just call it "truth", some words don't need new clothes. But yeah, obsessive, definitely. "Stubborness and disrespect", I can be both those, but it's not really a matter of principle, I just have a lot of inertia.

"The Right Stuff", and ultra-right wing blog that seems to carry the water for neoreactionary ideas:
http://therightstuff.biz/
An article from there that ties "libertarian fascism" to Curtis Yarvin
http://therightstuff.biz/2013/02/27/...-libertarians/

Here is a lengthy blog post countering the neoreactionary movement, but not in the underlying philosophy (which I think is more of an illusion really) but rather counters many of the "scientific" and "statistical" positions they take to support their "truth" about who is responsible for societies ills (hint: stupid people). So this "anti reactionary faq" addresses a lot of the demographic anchor points of the movement:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20...actionary-faq/

There are quite a few videos of Curtis speaking, but some of the first ones I ran across were in esoteric lala land. This one however gives a good overview of how he thinks, his agenda, and his worldview. It's quite scary to me and only makes me see this movement as more dangerous, and certainly directly opposed to true "liberty" as understood by the remnant.

He also confesses that Thomas Carlyle is his favorite writer and many people see Carlyle's anti-democratic views as a prelude to fascism. Some even call Carlyle the prophet of fascism.

static link for mobile viewers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZluMysK2B1E



And just for fun, here's him doing some poetry in 1997 looking like Anthony Kiedis.

static link for mobile viewers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aa2...WqZJbF&index=1



Now if any of the neoreactionary fanboys have other living gods they'd like to discuss besides Curtis, feel free to add them to the mix. I saw other names mentioned but Yarvin seems to be at the center of the shrubbery maze, so I'm focusing there.

...

Anyway, it seems to me this thread is necessary. These neoreactionaries are here, but they clearly understand that their views are not kosher with the Ron Paul message. I don't think they should be kicked out, but I'd rather they simply out themselves as proposing an alternative message rather than covertly undermining the agenda here and attacking the flanks as supporters that just "finally woke up".

Here's menciusmoldbug (not the real one) RPF user summing up the basic philosophical core of neoreactionaries:

It's like you didn't read a word a said. I don't know what else to do at this point other than repeat myself.

Moral realism is false. Nihilism is true. There are no such things as "rights" in the sense that you are using the term.

Now, you are of course welcome do believe in whatever fantasies or fairy tales you like, but doing so will not change the way the world actually is. If someone steals your watch and you can't get it back, then whether you say they have a "right" to possess it or not is 100% irrelevant.

...

I am pro-authoritarian.

Now, essentially this denies the entire basis of "natural law", and obviously rejects the accompanying Christian view that moral commandments ultimately are the expression of this law. The compassion expressed in the "R3volution" is outright rejected in Nihilism, and instead a "will to power" is what is considered the litmus test for a healthy individual.

Anyway, more later.

[Ronin Truth]

With the first two words of the title forming an oxymoron, I just lost a whole lot of interest in reading anymore.

PASS!

[wizardwatson]

With the first two words of the title forming an oxymoron, I just lost a whole lot of interest in reading anymore.

PASS!

Don't blame you. A thinking man sees through this malarchy at once. But I felt the thread necessary to show some light on these "neoreactionaries" as they seem to be under the impression that they operate here covertly. This thread is to remind them that their presence is known.

[Ronin Truth]

Don't blame you. A thinking man sees through this malarchy at once. But I felt the thread necessary to show some light on these "neoreactionaries" as they seem to be under the impression that they operate here covertly. This thread is to remind them that their presence is known.

Carry on.

[r3volution 3.0]

I'm feeling lazy so I'm going to provide the tl;dr version of the answer:

From a libertarian perspective, non-democratic government is best (i.e. tends to be smallest).

That is the essential insight of Moldbug and of the neoreaction in general (and it is absolutely true).

Everything else they go on about (e.g. racial blah blah blah) is irrelevant or false.

[kcchiefs6465]

I'm feeling lazy so I'm going to provide the tl;dr version of the answer:

From a libertarian perspective, non-democratic government is best (i.e. tends to be smallest).

That is the essential insight of Moldbug and of the neoreaction in general (and it is absolutely true).

Everything else they go on about (e.g. racial blah blah blah) is irrelevant or false.

Can you expound on what precisely you are referring to with regards to "tends to be smallest"?

I do not mean to sound patronizing but it may "tend to be small[er];" all that is irrelevant once the scapegoat of the ignorant is crucified.

Do kings not often have bureaucrats and henchmen? Loyalists and dissidents? The taxed, murdered, and the martyred? Conquering armies and opportunistic sociopaths gaming said system for their private benefit?

They can save monarchies for the crows.

ETA: I assume you are speaking of monarchies as it has been discussed a few times in various threads. If you are not, I apologize for the misrepresentation.

Collectivism is the head that needs severed. Having a king, or dictator, hardly absolves a society from the scourges of collectivism. Absent absolving society from the scourge of collectivism, I fail to see much difference with regards to the various political formations of governance.

The king, for instance, would rather not be on a pike. So rather than respecting Rights and refraining from stealing all they are afforded the courtesy to steal, scapegoats for the current state of affairs are sacrificed. They'll clip coins or tamper with purity of metals, or if the weather is right, simply execute those who make issue of their Rights being violated, parade examples and what not, but is it really smaller government? Technically, I suppose... and that's a leap on my part.

Anymore, while specific ideologies differ in various ways, I do not much see difference in a fascist versus a progressive. Yes, I understand the differences in certain aspects of their ideology. Hanging from the same rope, offered through different means... Well, you're still hanging from that rope.

Individualism versus collectivism and all that that entails.... $#@! a government.

[wizardwatson]

I'm feeling lazy so I'm going to provide the tl;dr version of the answer:

From a libertarian perspective, non-democratic government is best (i.e. tends to be smallest).

That is the essential insight of Moldbug and of the neoreaction in general (and it is absolutely true).

Everything else they go on about (e.g. racial blah blah blah) is irrelevant or false.

Actually "everything else they go on about" is not irrelevant. Any novice understands the problems with "democracy".

The relevant part is them taking an amoral stance towards governance. That is most certainly relevant as it runs counter to the very core idea of liberty.

Of course maybe this falls into your "false" category. In that case I would agree, the neoreactionary amoral stance is a false and unworkable paradigm.

Where I disagree with you is thinking that the form of governance is the more relevant part of their movement. Their amoral stance, especially to the ideas of the liberty movement, is far more relevant.

As far as the opinion on governance, I'm a Christian, which in the grand scheme of things ultimately makes me a monarchist at least for the millenial kingdom anyway. What a Christian is beyond that is kind of a surprise.

[r3volution 3.0]

Can you expound on what precisely you are referring to with regards to "tends to be smallest"?

I do not mean to sound patronizing but it may "tend to be small[er];" all that is irrelevant once the scapegoat of the ignorant is crucified.

Do kings not often have bureaucrats and henchmen? Loyalists and dissidents? The taxed, murdered, and the martyred? Conquering armies and opportunistic sociopaths gaming said system for their private benefit?

They can save monarchies for the crows.

ETA: I assume you are speaking of monarchies as it has been discussed a few times in various threads. If you are not, I apologize for the misrepresentation.

Collectivism is the head that needs severed. Having a king, or dictator, hardly absolves a society from the scourges of collectivism. Absent absolving society from the scourge of collectivism, I fail to see much difference with regards to the various political formations of governance.

The king, for instance, would rather not be on a pike. So rather than respecting Rights and refraining from stealing all they are afforded the courtesy to steal, scapegoats for the current state of affairs are sacrificed. They'll clip coins or tamper with purity of metals, or if the weather is right, simply execute those who make issue of their Rights being violated, parade examples and what not, but is it really smaller government? Technically, I suppose... and that's a leap on my part.

Anymore, while specific ideologies differ in various ways, I do not much see difference in a fascist versus a progressive. Yes, I understand the differences in certain aspects of their ideology. Hanging from the same rope, offered through different means... Well, you're still hanging from that rope.

Individualism versus collectivism and all that that entails.... $#@! a government.

Anarchy is impossible; there will always be a state.

Of conceivable types of states, monarchy is the least bad.

[r3volution 3.0]

Any novice understands the problems with "democracy".

Most libertarians are aware of the problems with democracy, but few identify non-democratic government as the solution.

The neoreaction, despite having lately drifted off in unfortunate directions, deserves a great deal of credit for reviving interest in non-democratic government.

The relevant part is them taking an amoral stance towards governance. That is most certainly relevant as it runs counter to the very core idea of liberty.

How so?

[kcchiefs6465]

Anarchy is impossible; there will always be a state.

There will always be governance. There will not always be a state.

Humans have operated without them and will operate without them again. Whether that is through an enlightenment, or whether it is through the eventual destruction of this earth.

Of conceivable types of states, monarchy is the least bad.

I would disagree with your assessment. Specifically your second point.

The king's rule is not written in stone. The people which he rules are required certain things to be placated from openly revolting. They must be fed and they must be entertained. One of the ways to do this is to take from some, or all, and redistribute to others. Clipping coins or diluting the purity of metals is one way this was accomplished. In the modern age, the paper would be worth less than the blood spilled to maintain confidence in it.

While what you are arguing is that it is better than any other political organization (and I would reject that), it is still a wholly immoral, inefficient, and barbarous system. That is whether we are considering its inevitable role in the market, or if we consider its inevitable violation of rights.

Rather than having a supposed majority argue and bicker, making concessions and amendments with regards to the violation of your rights, you now have one person who can do as much on a whim. If he is steadfast in his 'principles,' many people will die before the people are fed up and revolt. Then many more people will die. Then another despot will be installed. Then they will call it progress. And then the scapegoat of the day will be disappeared and/or murdered.

[r3volution 3.0]

There will not always be a state. Humans have operated without them and will operate without them again.

...only (a) in societies living near subsistence [where the state couldn't exist because there wasn't enough economic output to sustain it] or (b) for very brief periods of time between the collapse of one state and the emergence of another [and these periods of time witnessed anarchy in the pejorative sense of the word, not anything resembling anarcho-capitalism].

I would disagree with your assessment. Specifically your second point.

The king's rule is not written in stone. The people which he rules are required certain things to be placated from openly revolting. They must be fed and they must be entertained. One of the ways to do this is to take from some, or all, and redistribute to others. Clipping coins or diluting the purity of metals is one way this was accomplished. In the modern age, the paper would be worth less than the blood spilled to maintain confidence in it.

It's certainly possible that, in certain circumstances, where he's insecure for some reason, a monarch may need to buy the loyalty of the people or of certain magnates. The Roman emperors are a good example of this; they were chronically insecure because there never developed any generally accepted rules of succession, and so they had a habit of bribing the army and/or mob to stay in power. But this is not an essential feature of monarchy in general, most monarchies did not operate this way. Whereas, this behavior is essential to democracy. A quick proof of that is a comparison of social spending by democratic and non-democratic governments.

Rather than having a supposed majority argue and bicker, making concessions and amendments with regards to the violation of your rights, you now have one person who can do as much on a whim.

...but who has very little, if any, incentive to do so (unlike the aforementioned democratic politicians).

[kcchiefs6465]

...only (a) in societies living near subsistence [where the state couldn't exist because there wasn't enough economic output to sustain it] or (b) for very brief periods of time between the collapse of one state and the emergence of another [and these periods of time witnessed anarchy in the pejorative sense of the word, not anything resembling anarcho-capitalism].

I am positive there was trade and cooperation going on essentially since the beginning of mankind. While evil has always been around (simply to say that Man has killed, stolen, robbed, etc. since time immemorial), that does not equate to say that various factions didn't operate on practically anarcho-capitalist levels (absent what technology and modern political philosophy have forced an anarcho-capitalist to consider, i.e. humanity has evolved into a more complexly linked society, to put it shortly)

It's certainly possible that, in certain circumstances, where he's insecure for some reason, a monarch may need to buy the loyalty of the people or of certain magnates. The Roman emperors are a good example of this; they were chronically insecure because there never developed any generally accepted rules of succession, and so they had a habit of bribing the army and/or mob to stay in power. But this is not an essential feature of monarchy in general, most monarchies did not operate this way. Whereas, this behavior is essential to democracy. A quick proof of that is a comparison of social spending by democratic and non-democratic governments.

It does not matter if it is a cost incurred to quell an insurrection, invade a foreign land to maintain dominance over certain resources, or finance welfare programs.

The people will be taxed as far as they will tolerate. The money will be siphoned, through debasement methods, into the hands of the connected.

...but who has very little, if any, incentive to do so (unlike the aforementioned democratic politicians).

Are wealth, power, and luxury not incentive enough? Would these kings (or queens............ or megalomaniac shysters intent on bombing Iran) be of a different breed than the average? Effectively that is what you're offering, right? That these kings are of a better cast than regular folks? If they were alright I suppose that'd be 'alright' but if they were, say, authoritarian busy bodies, well, that would be as much an issue in a monarchy as in a democracy.

I'm not arguing for democracy. I am arguing against monarchy. I'm having a difficult time seeing the differences within what I would call blatant authoritarianism, absent the flavor.

[r3volution 3.0]

...only (a) in societies living near subsistence [where the state couldn't exist because there wasn't enough economic output to sustain it] or (b) for very brief periods of time between the collapse of one state and the emergence of another [and these periods of time witnessed anarchy in the pejorative sense of the word, not anything resembling anarcho-capitalism].

I am positive there was trade and cooperation going on essentially since the beginning of mankind. While evil has always been around (simply to say that Man has killed, stolen, robbed, etc. since time immemorial), that does not equate to say that various factions didn't operate on practically anarcho-capitalist levels (absent what technology and modern political philosophy have forced an anarcho-capitalist to consider, i.e. humanity has evolved into a more complexly linked society, to put it shortly)

If you're arguing that anarchy is possible when society is at subsistence-level, yes I agree, as I said.

My point is that it is only possible when society is at subsistence-level (that is what the historical record indicates).

So, unless the plan is to return to 10,000 BC and live at subsistence-level, there are no prospects for anarchy going forward.

Are wealth, power, and luxury not incentive enough? Would these kings (or queens............ or megalomaniac shysters intent on bombing Iran) be of a different breed than the average? Effectively that is what you're offering, right? That these kings are of a better cast than regular folks?

No.

Have you read the monarchy thread that I linked (at least the OP)?

My argument is that monarchs would have different incentives than democratic politicians, not that they'll be morally superior.

That is, a purely selfish monarch will behave differently (and better from a libertarian point of view) than a purely selfish democratic politician.

...not because he's a nice guy, but because it benefits him to do so.

[kcchiefs6465]

If you're arguing that anarchy is possible when society is at subsistence-level, yes I agree, as I said.

My point is that it is only possible when society is at subsistence-level (that is what the historical record indicates).

So, unless the plan is to return to 10,000 BC and live at subsistence-level, there are no prospects for anarchy going forward.

Historical records in 6,000 BC might have indicated sacrificing lambs to appease whom or whatever. Was that the way the world was always going to remain?

I question humanity's potential being limited by inherent irredeemable ways. Though perhaps I am incorrect to do so as a relative few will probably destroy the earth before such potential is realized (if possible).

Historical records are a relative indication of the future as we can make certain predictions on its account. It is not the future. People will either accept the truth that a free society, while not being perfect (as no society is), is the most effective, moral, and lawfully legitimate way to organize. Or they won't.

No.

Have you read the monarchy thread that I linked (at least the OP)?

My argument is that monarchs would have different incentives than democratic politicians, not that they'll be morally superior.

That is, a purely selfish monarch will behave differently (and better from a libertarian point of view) than a purely selfish democratic politician.

...not because he's a nice guy, but because it benefits him to do so.

I apologize for that mischaracterization. I did read the OP in your thread however did not read the responses.

I think it is all boiling down to the consideration of "better." Democracy being what it is, it is not hard to surpass it on pretty much any grounds. I've seen people offer theocracy as 'better.' And at times, I don't much blame them. I'll agree with the monarchists or theocrats if they are positing that Man (every human) is King (has ultimate dominion) over their property. I somehow doubt that that is the case though.

Is it more the case in a monarchy? For argument's sake I will suppose, but then, so what? Are you trying to show how bad democracy is or paint monarchy in a good light? (or simply just musing about political systems?)

As a libertarian, $#@! all three of them.

[kcchiefs6465]

If you're arguing that anarchy is possible when society is at subsistence-level, yes I agree, as I said.

My point is that it is only possible when society is at subsistence-level (that is what the historical record indicates).

So, unless the plan is to return to 10,000 BC and live at subsistence-level, there are no prospects for anarchy going forward.

Historical records in 6,000 BC might have indicated sacrificing lambs to appease whom or whatever. Was that the way the world was always going to remain?

I question humanity's potential being limited by inherent irredeemable ways. Though perhaps I am incorrect to do so as a relative few will probably destroy the earth before such potential is realized (if possible).

Historical records are a relative indication of the future as we can make certain predictions on its account. It is not the future. People will either accept the truth that a free society, while not being perfect (as no society is), is the most effective, moral, and lawfully legitimate way to organize. Or they won't.

No.

Have you read the monarchy thread that I linked (at least the OP)?

My argument is that monarchs would have different incentives than democratic politicians, not that they'll be morally superior.

That is, a purely selfish monarch will behave differently (and better from a libertarian point of view) than a purely selfish democratic politician.

...not because he's a nice guy, but because it benefits him to do so.

I apologize for that mischaracterization. I did read the OP in your thread however did not read the responses.

I think it is all boiling down to the consideration of "better." Democracy being what it is, it is not hard to surpass it on pretty much any grounds. I've seen people offer theocracy as 'better.' And at times, I don't much blame them. I'll agree with the monarchists or theocrats if they are positing that Man (every human) is King (has ultimate dominion) over their property. I somehow doubt that that is the case though.

Is it more the case in a monarchy? For argument's sake I will suppose, but then, so what? Are you trying to show how bad democracy is or paint monarchy in a good light? (or simply just musing about political systems?)

As a libertarian, $#@! all three of them.

[r3volution 3.0]

Historical records in 6,000 BC might have indicated sacrificing lambs to appease whom or whatever. Was that the way the world was always going to remain?

Anarchy has never existed in a civilized society.

Does this prove that it can't? No, historical evidence (esp. in the social sciences) cannot ever prove anything with absolute certainty.

However, to the extent that historical evidence tells us anything at all, it does not strengthen the case for anarchy (as you suggested), but weakens it.

My own argument against anarchy is not historical, but rather a priori, based on economics, as laid out in the anarchy thread linked earlier.

tl;dr = a security market is extremely prone to cartelization

I apologize for that mischaracterization. I did read the OP in your thread however did not read the responses.

I think it is all boiling down to the consideration of "better." Democracy being what it is, it is not hard to surpass it on pretty much any grounds. I've seen people offer theocracy as 'better.' And at times, I don't much blame them. I'll agree with the monarchists or theocrats if they are positing that Man (every human) is King (has ultimate dominion) over their property. I somehow doubt that that is the case though.

Is it more the case in a monarchy? For argument's sake I will suppose, but then, so what? Are you trying to show how bad democracy is or paint monarchy in a good light? (or simply just musing about political systems?)

As a libertarian, $#@! all three of them.

A monarchy is "better" in the sense that it will tend to allow more freedom, aggress less.

[wizardwatson]

This post is directed at this neg-rep I got:



You know it isn't "slander" if that's the label the person WANTS to be known by. Curtis makes it clear he's pro-fascism, and "libertarian fascism" is from an article I linked to in the OP. Like I've said elsewhere, people like Curtis aren't denying being fascist, they are just offended that people who aren't intellectually smart enough to grasp it are using it. So honestly I think if Curtis knew I was calling him a fascist and he knew how well I understood it, he might even consider it a compliment.

Of course it isn't one in my opinion, but vanity works weird like that.

An article from there that ties "libertarian fascism" to Curtis Yarvin
http://therightstuff.biz/2013/02/27/...-libertarians/

Which says this:



And furthermore this:



Anyway, I've noticed reading comprehension is a common failing of the neg-rep crowd.

[r3volution 3.0]

FYI, I'm not the neg repper, but I'd like to respond anyway...

You know it isn't "slander" if that's the label the person WANTS to be known by.

The article you cite isn't written by Moldbug. I don't recall him ever calling himself a libertarian fascist, or even using the phrase libertarian fascism.

Curtis makes it clear he's pro-fascism

How are you defining fascism?

If you mean anything vaguely authoritarian, well sure, he's a fascist.

If you mean populist, nationalistic, socialism (ala Mussolini or Hitler), then he's absolutely not a fascist; quite exactly the opposite.

[wizardwatson]

FYI, I'm not the neg repper, but I'd like to respond anyway...

The article you cite isn't written by Moldbug. I don't recall him ever calling himself a libertarian fascist, or even using the phrase libertarian fascism.

How are you defining fascism?

If you mean anything vaguely authoritarian, well sure, he's a fascist.

If you mean populist, nationalistic, socialism (ala Mussolini or Hitler), then he's absolutely not a fascist; quite exactly the opposite.

Am I going to be schooled now?

"libertarian fascism" is used in reference to him. He says "neoreactionary". Both memes point to the same concept.

Curtis' words, he says in the video Carlyle is his favorite writer:

http://unqualified-reservations.blog...scism-and.html

Let's do fascism first, because fascism is easy. Fascism is Carlyle, implemented by swine.

...

Fortified by your progressive education, which is at this moment flashing the red alert, see instantly that this program, implemented by swine, is fascism. And implemented by non-swine? It has no name - for history has yet to see its like.

...

It is this difference - the line between military honor and tradition, and paramilitary brawling and thuggery - that separates men from swine, and Carlyle from fascism.

Curtis' philosophy in his mind is "fascism done right". Traditionalism, blah, blah, blah. It's amoral authoritarianism, to paraphrase. He thinks its an art in his mind perhaps but to me it's irrelevant. He seeks to redefine "liberty" as prosperity and is racist/elitist along the lines of intellect.

I don't have infinite time to go about researching all the wackos of the world in detail. Thomas Carlyle, Julius Evola, Curtis Yarvin, etc., etc.

Do you have a point to make besides the one you've already made that "democracy is bad", which is a truism that any fool agrees with or do you simply want to point out all the things that Curtis Yarvin didn't "precisely say" to hone your skills as a writer? I'm not doing a research paper on Curtis Yarvin, I'm simply putting a big sign on his name in this forum that says "not on our side".

[r3volution 3.0]

"libertarian fascism" is used in reference to him. He says "neoreactionary".

Gee, that's not quite the same as him labeling himself a libertarian fascist, is it?

Curtis' philosophy in his mind is "fascism done right".

What he's saying, very clearly in the section you quoted, is that he strongly opposes what has historically been called fascism (ala Hitler or Mussolini).

Hence, your attempted smear (trying to associate him with those horrendous political systems) falls flat on its face.

Traditionalism, blah, blah, blah. It's amoral authoritarianism, to paraphrase. He thinks its an art in his mind perhaps but to me it's irrelevant. He seeks to redefine "liberty" as prosperity and is racist/elitist along the lines of intellect.

I don't have infinite time to go about researching all the wackos of the world in detail. Thomas Carlyle, Julius Evola, Curtis Yarvin, etc., etc.

You obviously have no understanding of what he's proposing, nor any honest intention of understanding.

Do you have a point to make besides the one you've already made that "democracy is bad", which is a truism that any fool agrees with or do you simply want to point out all the things that Curtis Yarvin didn't "precisely say" to hone your skills as a writer? I'm not doing a research paper on Curtis Yarvin, I'm simply putting a big sign on his name in this forum that says "not on our side".

Right, which simply reveals your ignorance of what he's saying.